{"id":3367,"date":"2023-07-07T21:23:26","date_gmt":"2023-07-07T13:23:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/yzzks.com\/index.php\/2023\/07\/07\/%e5%b8%8c%e6%8b%89%e9%87%8c%e8%83%bd%e6%88%90%e4%b8%ba%e7%be%8e%e5%9b%bd%e6%80%bb%e7%bb%9f%e5%90%97%ef%bc%9f\/"},"modified":"2024-03-15T10:11:53","modified_gmt":"2024-03-15T02:11:53","slug":"can-hillary-become-president-of-the-united-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/current-politics\/3367\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Hillary become President of the United States?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\tCan Hillary become President of the United States?<\/strong>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\n<\/div>\n
\n\tAuthor: Zhan Hao<\/strong>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\n<\/div>\n

      Recently, many online media outlets in both China and the United States have featured one person on their front pages: Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State, and the first American woman to run for president. Hillary has made headlines because she officially announced her candidacy for the next U.S. presidency; she aims to become the occupant of the White House.
\n      Hillary is known for her strong leadership; she was not only the most powerful First Lady in history, but likely also the most powerful Secretary of State. During her four years as Secretary of State, she almost outshone Obama, and she was the one calling the shots on virtually all of the United States\u2019 international affairs. Of course, it was precisely because of her that Obama was arguably the most ineffective president in U.S. history: during his first term, his spotlight was overshadowed and his power diluted; by the midpoint of his second term, the Democratic Party had lost control of both chambers of Congress, leaving him a lame-duck president.
\n      After Hillary announced her presidential bid, a search for \u201cHillary\u201d on Baidu revealed a headline reading \u201cProbability of winning: 91%\u201d\u2014a win probability provided by a betting company. So, how likely is it that Hillary will win the White House?
\n      As \u201cClinton II,\u201d Hillary certainly has a chance of becoming president, because the U.S. is currently facing a shortage of political talent, and she has no challengers within the Democratic Party\u2014it is a foregone conclusion that she will be the party\u2019s presidential nominee. Moreover, in current polls, she enjoys the highest approval rating for the presidency, leading the second-place candidate, Jeb Bush, by more than ten percentage points. However, in my view, the likelihood of her ultimately winning the White House and becoming president is no more than 50 percent. Compared to her chances of becoming president, George W. Bush\u2019s younger brother\u2014\u201cBush III\u201d\u2014is more likely to win the White House. Why do I say this? There are four reasons:<\/p>\n

      I. Disadvantages Related to Age and Gender.<\/strong>
\n      Although the United States has had three female secretaries of state in recent years, compared to Europe, it is still harder for Americans to accept a female president\u2014even though Hillary is a very strong candidate. In a country that reveres muscular, macho men, having a woman serve as head of state and leader is a major psychological hurdle. This psychological hurdle is even greater than that of having a Black person serve as president.
\n      Of course, the more serious issue plaguing Hillary is her age. She is 68 this year; she will be 69 during the 2016 campaign, and nearly 70 when she takes office. The only U.S. president to win an election at age 70 was President Reagan in 1981. Furthermore, rumors about Hillary\u2019s health surfaced over the past two years, which have left Americans skeptical of her leadership. Given her age, voters will undoubtedly worry that even if she is elected, she will likely only serve one term, and this will undermine voter confidence.
\n      Compared to Hillary, the \u201cClinton II,\u201d Jeb Bush\u2014the \u201cBush III\u201d with a father and brother who were both presidents\u2014is younger; having just turned 62, he will be 63 in 2016, giving him an advantage of more than five years over Hillary. Jeb Bush clearly holds these advantages in terms of age and gender.<\/p>\n

      II. Eight Years of Inaction by the Democratic Obama Administration.<\/strong>
\n      Obama has been in office for more than six years, and during that time, his domestic and international achievements have been lackluster. Although successive rounds of quantitative easing (QE) have temporarily stemmed the economic decline on the surface, these benefits have not reached the lower and middle classes. Over the past six-plus years, the wealth gap in the United States has continued to widen, Americans\u201c welfare has steadily declined, and social tensions have continued to intensify. During Obama\u2019s term, not only did the \u201dOccupy Wall Street\u201c movement take place, but nationwide \u201dFerguson riots\u201d also erupted. With no fundamental improvements in the economy or people\u2019s livelihoods and an increase in internal conflicts, the Obama administration lost control of both chambers of Congress before his term had ended.
\n      For nearly two years, Obama\u2019s approval rating has hovered below 50%, and even his March poll\u2014which marked a 20-month high\u2014only reached 48%. Therefore, at this stage, Obama is a double-edged sword for Hillary\u2019s campaign, and his performance over the next year or so will directly impact the domestic election landscape. However, with the White House having lost control of both chambers of Congress, what can it possibly do over the next year or so to help Hillary win votes? At least for now, it\u2019s hard to say.<\/p>\n

      III. Campaign strategies still diverge from reality.<\/strong>
\n      Hillary\u2019s advisory team is clearly of a very high caliber; she has a former president as her husband backing her, and the couple is among the most effective at raising political campaign funds. Hillary also has a rich political resume. However, judging from media reports, her campaign strategy still seems somewhat out of touch with reality.
\n      We know that Hillary\u2019s loss to Obama in the last primary was an \u201caccident\u201d\u2014no one expected her to lose to Obama, but in the end, she lost the nomination. The fundamental reason for her loss to Obama last time was that American voters had grown weary of the Republican Party led by George W. Bush, because during his presidency he launched two wars and caused an economic crisis, At the time, the American public was desperate for a change and eager to try their \u201cluck\u201d with someone new, and a significant part of Obama\u2019s campaign message centered on race and the historical significance of his candidacy\u2014which gave American voters, who had been feeling stifled, a chance to \u201cbreak through.\u201d In this regard, Hillary\u2014a \u201cfamiliar face\u201d\u2014failed to spark much interest among voters. Consequently, the young Obama emerged as a dark horse and won the election in a landslide.
\n      What\u2019s more, compared to other politicians, Obama was an exceptionally eloquent speaker whose speeches were highly inspiring\u2014a factor that played a crucial role in his campaign as the subprime mortgage crisis swept across the United States. Furthermore, while Obama was young and handsome at the time, his Republican opponent, McCain, was far less appealing and a typical conservative\u2014a profile that naturally struggled to win over voters hoping for a fresh start. As a result, Obama ultimately won the election. During Obama\u2019s re-election campaign, the Republicans followed the Democrats\u2019 lead by fielding the handsome Mitt Romney. However, the Democrats still enjoyed strong public support at the time, and American voters also wanted some continuity in U.S. policy, so Obama ultimately won the election.
\n      This time around, Hillary is clearly learning from and emulating Obama\u2019s campaign experience; her aides have explicitly stated that she will focus heavily on issues of equality and women\u2019s rights in the United States and around the world. Although this cannot possibly constitute the entirety of Hillary\u2019s campaign, her campaign announcement video reveals that its key elements include women, the lives of middle-class and ordinary families, and a down-to-earth image\u2014all reflecting the central theme of \u201cthe pursuit of a happy life.\u201d Viewed in isolation, this campaign video presents no problem, but it stands in stark contrast to the reality of the widening wealth gap in the United States and the declining standard of living among the lower- and middle-class populations. This contrast has emerged precisely during the Democratic Party\u2019s time in office. In my view, such an election strategy is likely misguided.
\n      For the United States today, what it needs at this stage is likely not so much a president who projects a down-to-earth image, but rather a true leader. This leader must possess strong leadership and governance skills and be capable of leading the United States back to prosperity\u2014this is what voters should be hoping for. There is no sign of this in Hillary\u2019s campaign.
\n      Compared to Hillary, Jeb Bush\u2014who is relatively low-key and pragmatic and has a solid track record from his eight years as governor\u2014is likely to appeal even more to American voters now that he has announced his candidacy. Moreover, Jeb Bush\u2019s background is in no way inferior to Hillary\u2019s; both his father and older brother have served as U.S. presidents. Although George W. Bush\u2019s reputation was not great toward the end of his term, the Bush family\u2019s image of strength has always been impressive. A low-key, pragmatic, and strong president would likely be better positioned to win the hearts of American voters.<\/p>\n

      IV. Issues with Hillary\u2019s Public Image.<\/strong>
\n      For more than two decades, Hillary has been a prominent figure in American politics, a rising star known for her high-profile approach and the image of a strong, capable woman. However, she has faced a certain degree of public fatigue in the U.S., and the \u201cemail scandal\u201d continues to be an issue. Furthermore, because she and her husband are so adept at amassing wealth, they have, to some extent, become somewhat detached from the lower- and middle-class populations, and her original appeal as a down-to-earth figure may no longer be as evident as it once was.
\nCompared to Hillary, Jeb Bush performed well during his years as governor and earned a strong reputation locally. After leaving office, he remained largely out of the political spotlight. While this reduced his visibility, it also heightened voters\u201c sense of novelty and curiosity about him. Therefore, although his current poll numbers lag significantly behind Hillary\u2019s, this is due to his prolonged absence from the political scene; once he becomes the Republican nominee, his support will inevitably surge. The sense of novelty that Jeb Bush brings to voters will heighten their expectations, which will work in his favor as he moves forward in his campaign. Furthermore, given the Democrats\u201d poor track record over the past eight years, voters are increasingly eager for a change\u2014a sentiment that will further boost Jeb Bush\u2019s appeal.
\n      The four reasons mentioned above mean that, although Hillary currently holds a lead in the polls, it will be difficult for her to maintain that lead until the very end. Therefore, in my view, the odds are higher that Hillary will ultimately lose the election than that she will win it. Of course, this is merely a speculative analysis based on the current situation. The U.S. presidential election is highly unpredictable, and unknown factors could sway the outcome at any moment. Therefore, to have a clear idea of who will ultimately win the White House, we will need to wait at least a year or so to see how things play out.
\n      However, for China, regardless of who is elected president, the U.S. will adopt a tougher stance toward China. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, although her policies may largely continue Obama\u2019s national strategy and there would be less of a learning curve, the U.S. strategy to contain China will inevitably intensify, and given Hillary\u2019s personality, she is likely to take some risky actions. If Jeb Bush is elected president, there may be significant adjustments to the national strategy, but his strategy to contain China will certainly not change. A Republican president is more heavily influenced by conservatives, so he may employ tactics against China that go beyond our expectations; of course, there will be a period of adjustment between the Chinese and U.S. governments.
\n      Given the current balance of power between China and the United States, no matter who is elected president, the U.S. will no longer be able to pursue unilateral policies toward China as it did in the past; whichever U.S. political party is in power will be unable to set aside cooperation with China. Of course, considering the eight-year span of the two U.S. presidential terms following 2016, there may be significant uncertainties in the strategic competition between China and the U.S., and the likelihood of unexpected developments during this period is therefore very high. Therefore, regardless of who is elected U.S. president, China must continue to implement its established national strategy and, above all, prioritize its own interests in responding to all possible contingencies. (Source: Xinhua)<\/p>\n

\n\t\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n\t                                           Jeb Bush<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u5e0c\u62c9\u91cc\u80fd\u6210\u4e3a\u7f8e\u56fd\u603b\u7edf\u5417\uff1f \u4f5c\u8005 \u5360\u8c6a   [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":12,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3367","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3367"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3367\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7381,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3367\/revisions\/7381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}